Shivraj Singh

Welcome!

Hello, Shivraj Singh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{01:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)}

Three-revert rule violation

You have violated the three-revert rule on Rajput:

• One
• Two
• Three
• Four

I know that it takes two to tango, so I'll be checking the other editors too, but that's a 24 hour block I'm afraid. Rob Church ^Talk 17:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Goethean

With respect to the WP:3RR report you left on my talk page, please post it on WP:AN/3RR in future, so that an administrator can deal with it. Thanks. Rob Church ^Talk 10:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Treachery

Remember you posted in your article that the generals and emperors comitted treachery when they deceived their opponents in the war and you were very adamant about that. I wonder how do you justify your adopting different names, using IP addresses and not your name and similar tactics, not to win an empire but to prove your point that you alone think is right. While doing so you lie and avoid facts. So why shouldn't we call it "Treachery"?

One more thing, "Are you a Shiv-Sainic"?

خرم Khurram 19:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember treachery is not there in rajput blood. My ip address is 203.101* (last part is different based on DHCP if you know what that means). Prove that any of these other addresses belong to me and I will quit coming to wikipedia. If you cannot prove your allegation, then you, zora, and whoever else is making these accusations should stop coming here.

Do you have the guts to accept this?

Shivraj Singh 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have formatted the "Rajput" article three times to the biased version that most of the editors reject. Rob Church and CoolCat had been told the issues and none of them now supports the version that you are associating with them. Your repeated reversions are vandalism and can be reported to the administrators.

خرم Khurram 18:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

India related links

From the above threads and Talk:Rajput, I see that you've been involved in some heated discussions. Pl. try to be conversant with Wikipedia policies so that you would be on a stronger wicket while you argue your points. Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just saw ur msg. Pl. post ur msg. on Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics as most of the Indian Wikipedians are a regular there; they may pitch in with more help, ideas and suggestions. Of Course, on our Wikipedia, we must be prepared for our articles to be mercilessly edited. Again, consensus is widely desired here - so, i think that your posting of the msg may be helpful. Best, --Gurubrahma 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. FireFox ^-CVU- 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rajput

Thanks for your message and signing up for an account in wikipedia. I would ask that you sign your messages with ~~~~ rather than putting your name so it is much easier to find your contributions. I've noticed several thing thusfar: Your only contributions under this name for the last two weeks has been to Rajput and other related articles, you have been in an edit war with reverts on both sides, and you have been quite vocal about your claims citing very particular sources and asking for other cites.

As an outsider to these events, I can only defer to other users who are involved with the process and I'm afraid that I can only offer advice. User:Cool Cat appears to have washed his hands of the article and User:Robchurch is on a wikibreak. I do not have the time to go in depth and read the books you have cited, nor even to wade through the Rajput article. I'm afraid that you may be fighting an uphill battle and one that I'm too busy to fight. You will need to find some consensus on the article with the other users. Start by cleaning up the content of the article and working on sentences that you both agree on and putting the disputed portions in a separate section. Work together if you can, finding common ground. Start with simple statements and not with lenghty citations that no one will check. If you cannot agree on points put both points down. Wikipedia has only succeeded because it is a collaborative process. Please see the history at abortion for some comparison.

If that doesn't work you may also want to check other users who speak hindi, live in India are from India or are on the India noticeboard.

Do not contact everyone on the list. Look for active contributors, or persons that speak both Hindi and english fairly well. If you leave a message BE CIVIL, do not accuse the other persons in the message of POV. Something as simple as "I have been in an edit war about Rajput, can you please help resolve the situation by cleaning up the article and removing POV statements?" will get NEUTRAL people to help edit the article. You may not like the edit they do, but you can help with that. DO NOT accuse people because you do not like what they say, remember...be civil. Best of luck. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rajput article

All these users Taoo/Wisesabre etc and some self proclaimed moderators like Zora/Goethean etc are just pushing muslim agenda. I have provided a list of 61 books from top researchers and these guys want to operate without citations. I have asked them repeatedly on the talk page to point out, with citations, what is POV, anti muslim in my edits and no one has responded till date. They are pushing a history which is *only* accepted by muslims and not by even person about whom this page is i.e the rajputs from India. It is really funny that a small group of pakistani muslims are trying to write the history of hindu rajputs.

Wikipedia has become a contest in outshouting the other. "Correct" version seems to be dependent on who has more numbers and these muslims are playing this game well. I will grant that Tom has some knowledge on the subject but not very deep.

You should keep an eye out for these users and help prevent muslim POV psuhing.

Shivraj Singh 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concerns. You may want to seek assitance from Wikipedia:Mediation, I try to stay away from POV disputes. --Cool Cat ^Talk 12:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

vandal/3RR page

Why are you making accusations against me? I only blocked an anonymous vandal making racial slurs. I don't see how that should offend you. If you have a specific complaint, please let me or another admin know what it is. Otherwise I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know what a rajput is!

I went to check what you've been working on, and found that you blanked the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR page. I hope that was a mistake! Anyway, I reverted your edit, so you might want to replace anything that I removed. I would rather it be under your log in, not mine.

kwami 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again!!

Hi Shivraj, if you need to reply to Nichalp, pl. reply on his talkpage. I am leaving his msg. on my talkpage and your reply to the same on his talkpage. Best, --Gurubrahma 16:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

RE:Rajput

No problem, I'll keep an eye. If you have any more trouble please don't hesitate to contact me. FireFox ^-CVU- 17:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Civility

Shivraj, check your email, I replied. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you haven't read it yet. But let me reiterate: If you cannot maintein basic civility, you will not last long here. It is not much to ask. It is a serious encyclopedia we are trying to write here, and no there's place for screaming, accusations, name-calling and the like. Restrict your comments to the content itself, and not the editors. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Support and suggestion

Hi Shivraj, I have written a long message to you which you can access here. I have taken the trouble to write such a long message mainly in the hope that some constructive suggestions will help you gain acceptance and popularity. I hope you will do me the courtesy of reading the message fully and carefully.

I was touched by your message somewhere that you felt "your whole identity was being attacked" and so I have written in detail trying to assuage such feelings and delineate the norms of composing matter for an encyclopaedia so that you do not feel particularly victimized. Hope this helps!ImpuMozhi 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)ImpuMozhi

Rajput

Hi, I've received a message on my talk page suggesting that you use "socks and anonIPs to give" yourself "unlimited reverts and veto power over the article", and that your "unilateral, unwavering refusal to allow any view but" yours "is what's blocking any progress" on the article (comment by Zora (talk · contribs)). I don't take a point of view on this, but could you give me your own view on what is happening, so I can understand, and perhaps facilitate a solution to, the ongoing problem? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I had created the Rajput page from 61 books. Look at this link. Zora and her firends have been calling me names from the very beginning: Hindutvawadi/POV pusher/having anti muslim bias etc and reverting my edits. I had asked them, many times, on talk page, to provide citations to support there claims and edits. Not one has come forth till date. To me this seems cluelessness about a topic and yet people insisting on editing. She personally got confused by vansha, cula, shakha and gotra-acharya of rajputs. Somebody posted a link to this book which even has a diagram on page 27 of what I have been talking about ! and yet Zora wants to argue against this.

Then she claims the population of rajputs as 12 million even though I provided a link from 2001 census which is here. I also explained to her that population of castes is what determines who gets to fight elections in India and all political parties rely on accurate caste information. She somehow does not understand.

She has ridiculed my references even though she has not read a single book mentioned.

She sided with Muslim POV without giving it a litmus test. Muslims have been spreading information that all there jihadi royals are rajputs. You can look at the talk page where they have claimed Muhammad's tribesmen, Quereshis, are rajput, Salahuddin was a rajput etc. Not one amongst 40 million rajputs agree with this notion.

For last one month she and group have been accusing me of using sock puppets and there has been an intense discussion on this topic [1].

I also feel that she got me blocked with help of her friend Dmcdevit who happens to be an admin. I did not break any rule and neither was I uncivil towards anyone and yet I was blocked for 7 days. This is what has happened to user sisodia who also happens to be a hindu rajput. He has been blocked indefinetely.

More example from Sher Shah Suri page. Taaoo and Wisesabre are reverting my edits eventhough events desribed by me are corroborated by Richard Saran's book and [2] & [3] a site run by an afghan. Digvijay has cited passages from multiple books regarding GT road and its existence since 4th century BC. Yet these guys keep reverting as if Sher Shah build Grand Trunk road. Look at Talk: Sher Shah Suri.

Shivraj Singh 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support Shiv here. Zora has distinct pro-Muslim bais and she disregards us a mere "hindutva facists" despite the fact that being an atheist i'm least likely to be associated with religious fanacticism of any kind. Zora has been singularly responsoble for anti-Hindu bias in many controversial articles here. We refuse to have the articles on our culture, history and identity being moderated by self-appointed admins living half a world away.

AMbroodEY 11:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no vandalism

Hi, Shivraj. Thanks for the email, but I see no vandalism in the edits you have been reverting at Sher Shah Suri. All I see is an edit war, for which both sides share some blame. If you want your edits to be accepted by the community, I'd suggest discussing them first on the article talk page.

I'd also suggest working harder to make your additions clear and clearly relevant to the pages in question. I know you feel that the material you're adding is important, but that's not enough: a general-interest reader must be able to come away with an understanding of why it's important. Even when I can understand what you're trying to say, I am often mystified as to why the material is there. Have you considered taking an English-language composition or journalism class? Once your additions are clearer and more compelling, people will be much less likely to revert them. --William Pietri 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page on this topic?

Shivraj Singh 13:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I skimmed it. Is there something in particular you wanted to call my attention to? Even if other people were behaving badly (which I didn't see) that doesn't justify bad behavior on your part. --William Pietri 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill,

This page contains information from multiple books. Richard Saran, who has a Phd from University of Michingan, Ann Arbor, published the book which contains description of battle of Sammel. Similarly this link & this link provides info on Sammel which agrees with Richard's book. The web link does not use Richard's book as his source. This stuff is being deleted wihtout proving it is historically incorrect. The reason they are unhappy is because they want to hide Sher Shah Suri's treachery. They have been on this behavior for last few months when they were doing same thing on rajput page containing description of SherShah Suri.

What happened at Raisina is also chronicled by multiple historians and it shows SherShah's character. We cannot censor unpleasant stuff because it shows Sher Shah in bad light. If something is historically incorrect then it has no place in Wikipedia.

Then GT road is chronicled to have been built by Mauyra's. There armies repeatedly went into afghanistan on this road. If you scroll down on [Talk:Sher Shah Suri] Digvijay has quoted passage from Clive Ponting's book that goods(silk etc) from China reached Ferghana on the "India Grand Road" built by Mauryas. Some users here insist that SherShah built it. This seems like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to aggrandize Suri's character.

Shivraj Singh 05:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My name's William, thanks.

You seem to be missing my point entirely Shivraj, and we generally seem to be having trouble communicating. Perhaps that's the source of your problems with other editors as well? -- William Pietri 03:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your note via email, but I would prefer to keep Wikipedia-related discussion on Wikipedia.

I understand that you and other editors are having a disagreement over the content of the article, and that you consider them to be in factual error. However, that is irrelevant to the two points I was trying to make.

First, edit wars are not the way we settle disputes on Wikipedia. Even when you're entirely factually correct (and in fact, especially when you're correct), accusing people of vandalism and malfeasance is not assuming good faith and is unproductive. If you really are right, you can afford to be relaxed and generous about this. And on the occasions when you turn out to be wrong, your previous kindness will make it easy for others to see that your mistakes came from the best of intentions. To aid in this, start by discussing your changes on the talk pages before you make them. Wait until you can find something that all reasonable people agree on before changing the article.

Second, even if the material you are trying to put in is factually correct, I can't figure out what some of it is trying to say or why it is in the article. Understand that any editor might delete some of the material you put in not because they disagree, but because they don't understand it and can't figure out how to fix it. Working to make your contributions of higher quality will aid you in your efforts. If you aren't sure, then ask your fellow editors for feedback.

And while I'm at it, let me throw in a third point for free. From your email and some of your other comments, I gather you feel like you have taken a side in things. Certainly, you feel like some of the people involved are on a different side than you. Because Wikipedia articles must transcend taking sides, I personally avoid editing articles where I have a big personal stake. Consider spending some time contributing to Wikipedia articles where it's easier for you to be fair to all points of view. E.g., improve the articles about your home town or your hobbies, rather than articles where you feel a religious fervor.

Hoping that helps, --William Pietri 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Block warning

Shivraj, I'm sure I gave you ample warning, and plenty of instruction, before you were blocked last time. There can be no excuse for edit warring or incivility. Specifically, I told you that characterizing another's edits as vandalism in a content dispute is incivil, because it clearly is not. In particular, there is no excuse for your edits today, the very day the last block expired, for these edits. Both edit warring and uncivil edit sumaries. One more edit like those and you will be blocked again. Just stop it. You would be much more likely to convince people your way of thinking about Rajput it you acted reasonably. Dmcdevit·t 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this really an enyclopedia? What value does one bring to the table by citing references? Taaoo and Wisesabre operate without references and there reverts are fine? : As an admin you should ask them if they are challenging historians like Richard Saran and RC Majumdar (on whose book afghan-network.com & afghans.net are based) what is there source. Admins should rise up a bit and then analyze what is going on. If you look at the discussion page each point mentioned has been discussed with references from books from hindu rajput side. All edits from other side are without references. Why do you support unscholarly behavior? This is what makes them bold.

You can ban my login again if you want. Your last ban was illegal also. Shivraj Singh 13:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Impeach Zora

Hi Shiv, i'm collecting evidence on Zora's anti-Hindu, anti-India bias. Can you help me by analysing the loads of evidence from Talk pages of articles which Zora has contributed to?

classic textbook example of zora's ignorance is when she said that Rajput's are followers of Hinduism,Sikhism,Islam AND CHRISTIANITY. Hell granted there may be few but no way you can call Rajput's christians. AMbroodEY 15:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Shiv i got your email. Thanks for helping with this lil' project. I'll be going away for a short vac so i'll be probably able to help by first week of Jan. We can refer Zora to the Admins Tribunal. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rajputani

Hi, It is not polite to discuss too much who is of what caste and all that -- but please note, I have also changed the first line in the rajputani article to say "...ladies of rajput BIRTH ..." Here is one reliable reference, please read 1st paragraph fully: Cooch Behar. Also, why did you include the name of Rani Durgavati of the Gonds? I had to remove that also. ImpuMozhi 19:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sher Shah Article

I have made a few changes in the Battle of Sammel part. I think the essence is the same but you please have a look at it and if you feel that somethings need to be changed please tell me.

خرم Khurram 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added that in the article. Please have a look at it.

خرم Khurram 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rajput

I am sorry; I will not revert if you add material; even if unsourced, it will be marked with {{fact}} first. I am reverting you because you are removing material. Please don't do that. Your "references" section is very confused. Why the boldfaced blurbs? transliteration: Romanization of Hindi and Urdu, see here (did you look at the edit?). dab (ᛏ) 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would love to have a friendly and reasonable Hindu editor to debate with on Rajput, but at the moment, you guys are a hateful mob, nothing else. I am sure this is not an adequate image of Hindu society, but judging from the talkpage, your side of the argument certainly appears sadly discredited. Now revert to the sourced version, then add your material without destroying previous additions. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

you are so far out of line now that I take it upon myself to block you for 30 minutes for disruption to show that I am serious about enforcing policy. Your behaviour is also very close to vandalism, and I warn you not to continue removing sourced statements. dab (ᛏ) 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re your post to my talkpage: I have no opinion on the matter. I came to the article to enforce poilcy, and that's what I continue doing. I understand that Rajputs converting to Islam "lost their Rajput status" among those Rajputs who remained Hindu, but apparently they continue to refer to themselves as Rajputs. Those are two equally valid povs, since neither those who converted nor those who didn't convert have jurisdiction over Wikipedia. I am not reverting you because of your claims. I am reverting you (and now breifly blocking) you because you remove sourced statements, you remove cited references, and you remove warning templates. Don't do this, or you'll be blocked for longer periods. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only rajputs converting to Islam but son of rajput from non rajput hindu mothers were not considered rajputs. We are not here to assuage somebody's feelings few hundred years after there ancestors did something which there children are ashamed of today.

This POV by muslims is actually akin to hijacking of WP by random muslim POV which has no support on the ground. I know it is hard for you to comprehend.

What Kasturi mentions in her book is just saying some rajputs converted to Islam which I already mentioned on my version.

If you read a book you have to figure out how the auhor does there research. Every Phd starts off with a "new thesis" so that they can defend there work. Kasturi was in England and at Yale when she worked on that book i.e far away from ground. Unfortunately none of your refereces other thant Tod and Lindsay have any value but you are still pushing them. Why? I hope not just because u found them?

Shivraj Singh 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's be Clear

First and foremost, please never talk to me in a superlative tone. I am not used to that. Whatever we have accomplised in Sher Shah Suri page was because I presumed we finally has establised a good faith and I have no other purpose but to promote the neutral and true fact on the wikipedia. If you think that the Sher Shah page needs further enhancements, please give me your suggestions. For Rajput page, talk facts and not myths and please never tell me what to do and what not to. It is neither appropriate nor acceptable.

خرم Khurram 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem taking the world Muslim Rajput out but for that you will have to provide evidence. Evidence that can counter the historical facts recorded by several historians. While writing historical articles things are not granted, they must conform to the standards of scholary worksmanship. So far there is no evidence that conforms to your claim. As a matter of fact even in Rajasthan Muslim Rajputs were a unanimously accepted entity till way after 1947.

As for Battle of Sammel, please tell how do you think the Sher Shah's sending letters can become evident and how do you think that I am hiding this fact?

خرم Khurram 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You have said that there are Muslim Rajputs near your village but you do not accept them as Rajputs. Maybe they also have the similar POV about your village. Also with family ties, I presume you mean matrimonial ties. Marriage is a religiou-social bond and a Muslim marrying a non-Muslim except with a Christian and Jew girls is not allowed. So such bonds are non existing but not all Rajputs intermarry either (at least they did not in older times) so does it mean they were not Rajputs? Being Rajput is not a religious term, it is a social term and it is a proven and agreed upon fact.

خرم Khurram 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt if Muslim Rajputs are not being addressed Hukum by their servants and like. I believe most of them are called Rao and Bhatti or Rai etc. Can you please tell me what do you call them? It is just for my personal information. Also what you have stated about widow marriage clearly negates the word "immediately" in your argument about it. Also it makes the absence of any uniform rule for declassifying a Rajput as one more obvious and asserts to the fact that Rajput was a social standing not a religious one. BTW what part of Rajasthan do you live in?

خرم Khurram 22:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maulana is a term for a person who keeps beard and is respected among others. I doubt if every Muslim is being called Maulana. It is almost like calling someone "Pandit Jee". My ancestors moved from "Chautala" village in Sirsa district near "Bhatner" fort in the times of Ibrahim Lodhi and settled in Narowal district of Punjab.

Sher Shah page has been changed to the best of my ability. If you think something needs to be changed further, please provide me with a wording and we can move forward from there.

خرم Khurram 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

On warnings

It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to to be disruptive. You should stop independently of anyone else's actions or warnings. Having said that, the fact is that yes, I've talked to both Wisesabre and Zora, and Goethan was indeed blocked for 3RR at Rajput and directed to DR as well (and was recently warned about civility by another admin). Others' actions don't excuse yours, though. Perhaps you should try WP:RFM, but you need to be prepared to work together in mediation. Dmcdevit·t 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all for references. Read everything I've ever said to you and you'll see that I would never deny that. I don't know who this "you guys" is, but I speak for myself, and have no stake in this fight. Believe me, I agree that Goethan, and Wisesabre and anyone else who has engaged in edit warring is being disruptive, but that includes you. Let's just say that you were to stop, and become the paragon of civility and restraint. It would make you a whole lot more cedible in your argument. Please, do try mediation. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude go ahead and report 3RR voilation against me. Wisesabre 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell! Why should we report you? You are the comic relief of the plot.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

Kindly consider and comment

Kindly consider and comment as per this. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sher Shah Article

I am sorry but I am unable to comprehend your current revert. Have we come back a full circle on this article?

خرم Khurram 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rajput

I'm glad to hear you say that. Let's start over then, shall we? I want you to realize that I'm not on anyone's side here, just on Wikipedia's side in that I want the most NPOV verion possible. Now, (and please read the whole statement before getting too agitated) I do want Wikipedia to "represent the muslim POV." As well as the Hindu one, and any other one there may be. Please read over WP:NPOV if you doubt this, NPOV means documenting all POVs, advocating none, and even judging none for correctness (other than by documenting the criticisms of the other side).

As for Sisodia, I'm surprised to see you defending him so vehemently: he was a user that made only five edits, all to Rajput's talk page, not a single productive article edit, his first edit was a threat and ultimatum, the rest consisted of insults and hostility, so I concluded that his continued presence was harmful (and hurting your "side" more than anything else). I see the block hasn't stopped him, but honestly I haven't had the time or energy to look into this, I've been very ill recently.

I have never said you should sit quietly. You sound frustrated, but I can't see why; I have suggested multiple times that you try mediation, but you don't seem to have done so. If you are honestly and in good faith looking for help in resolving this dispute (other than in edit warring), then you really should avail yourself of our mediation or other dispute resolution processes. I'll try to take a closer look at this soon. Please though, keep this in mind: this is a wiki, which is dynamic, it is no use to you to revert when a determined rival can revert you just as readily; sometimes the best thing for you in the long-run is to let the other version stay up in the short-term and discuss rather than revert. While you are under no obligation to do so, that kind of show of good faith often leads more productive discussion and fosters good will. Give it a shot. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Shivraj, I've stated what I've seen. Xenophobic because of the refusal of us editors to accept that there are non Indians who may have an unbiased or updated perspective. Myopic because of the fact that people refuse to accept the fact that newer and possibly better theories emerge every year. I've read school history books written by Indian and non-Indian authors. Indian authors are usually dictated by political idealogies and reeks of a tacit bias. Foreign editors are more subdued, but lack the bias. (Recall the Shivaji incident where Shiv Sainks went on the rampage). From the Rajput talk page (posted 09:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)), dab has challenged you to provide a credible reference. A published book with an ISBN number is more credible that an online resource. Books are copyedited and reviewed before publishing, websites are not. If you can post a credible reference and not personally attack dab for being Swiss, I think you would have gained some respectability. The same applies to Zora. I've have differences with the two in the past, but we've never allowed it to go personal. I've been in their boat. I've been accused of having an anti-Hindu bias just because I removed an image of a temple that was a copyviolation. I've been accused of being anti-Marathi, because I deleted an article on a book whose existence was suspect. From the RFC, it looks like only sockpuppets seem to endorse the summary. Take my suggestion seriously, learn more about the wikisystem. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you fundamentally believe that western research is better then ours and our history by our people will always be inferior,

I never said that. It is you who unfortunately assumed so. I've stated that Indian history books are often coloured by political idealogies. I've read the class 12 college history text book (Maharashtra; Arts stream) and it reeks of an anti-Mughal, pro-Maratha bias.

Unless a westener puts his stamp of approval it does not become gospel. Grow out of it.

Grow out of it?? I'm afraid but your choice of words are a little condescending. I am trying to tell you that it is possible from a western point of view, history may be somewhat neutral. I'm not taking sides, I'm asking you to cite your references to support your claim. I also know that many Indian authors refuse to bow down to political painting.

But such a view point shows me the subjugation of your thinking process to that of cultural slave

You have already been warned for ad hominem attacks. Please go through Wikipedia:No personal attacks and desist from doing the same. If you continue to personally attack wikipedians, you might be hard banned. So in the interest of the Indian wikipedian community, please desist from doing so least we all get a bad name.

Your friends are pushing references that they googled

Do you have proof? Can you challenge them to quote the page numbers?

Look at the fight on WP on Arabic numerals

Have you read my comments there? Arabs were responsible for transferring the numerals from India to Europe. Hindu numerals will be confused with Devanagiri numerals.

Sad thing is India is not doing a good job in educating Indians.

You've finally come to the crux of the matter.

Your support of dab is just unacceptable.

You're entitled to have your own opinion. But in the best interests of the wikipedian community, you don't seem to be cooperating too much to end the fiasco.

You should be ashamed of calling yourself an Indian.

You hardly know of my work around here. I really don't have to show you my credentials. Stick around for a few months, learn about the wikiprocess and contribute in a more fruitful manner is the best advice I can give you.

I have no interest in the Rajput controversy, but I am appealing to you to cooperate with the other editors and end the mindless bickering. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty articles

Please don't create empty articles (having a category does not count). Unless you turn them into articles soon I will have to delete them, I'm afraid. violet/riga (t) 14:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, then you'll be able to add that fact to them. violet/riga (t) 14:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

When you create an article it should have some content. violet/riga (t) 15:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

When you create an article just including two categories is not enough. By all means recreate the srticles but please write something in them. violet/riga (t) 16:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please consult WP:NPA - we have a policy of no personal attacks, and this edit is in violation of that. violet/riga (t) 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. I came here to reply after seeing your message at Sundar's talk page. I am happy you have toned it down (although I would have been happier to see an apology). BTW, Happy holidays. regards, --Pamri • Talk 09:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Deora

I would have thought it was clear why I reverted Deora. You removed the {{context}} tag I added, so I reverted the article back to include it. Thanks, --Gary Kirk (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I still am not convinced the article has context. I have no idea what a shakora is, and the link is broken, as are many internal links. If a link is red, it means there's no article (with the default preferences). --Gary Kirk (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry? The relevance is?? --Gary Kirk (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Support to Dab

Yes. I'm an Indian. That doesn't mean that I need to support you even when you're wrong. First learn to respect the policies of Wikipedia and then advance your theory with consensus. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Rajput

Provide me with direct evidence and I will deal with it, I promise. FireFox 20:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide me with direct evidence of User:Suryabandhu (what's his name?) being called "bandar" by User:Supersaiyan. This includes, please, a difference link between 2 versions of the page to show exactly who wrote what. By the way, DPS's block has been reduced to 100 hours (that's 4 days and 4 hours). FireFox 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I can't do anything with this one, the two edited under IPs so there is no evidence. Sorry. FireFox 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sher Shah

Actually it was you who started to revert the post back to the version where the disagreement started. I have the informtion presented in the way as we agreed upon for a starting point.

خرم Khurram 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

We also took that "moot point" sentence out and it has again been put back. For others I suggested that you present a sample about how do you want to rephrase certain sentences so that we can discuss it further. The next thing that I say was the revert. To me there are few things that we need to clarify but we left them until I find enough time to research them.

1. The force composition of Maldeo's army and that of Sher Shah's.

2. The conduct of Sher Shah with Puran Mal and his people.

I also think that we shall give the article look of n "essay" rather than that of a "story".

What objections do you have on the article in its present condition?

خرم Khurram 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please tone it down

I refuse to reply to your comments unless you tune the tone down. You have been admonished by Indian editors too, so I can't see the reason why I should be singled out. Best of luck in your endeavours, I do not wish to reply to a person who refuses to reply in a civil manner, accuses me of being partisan and continues to be narrow minded. Please do not reply on my talk page unless you tone down your belligerence. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That said, I refuse to come to your assistance in the future unless you improve in your debating skills. You may look back at my history and see how I interact with other Indian editors. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Step by step

Shivraj, it would be good if you could spell my username right. The first rule of the game is to respect other people. I guess that goes without saying that it extends into real life too.

Had you been civil, we Indian editors would have rushed to your aid. I am more than willing to help out fellow editors, but if an editor refuses to be civil, I refuse to help him out. That said, I have never doubted your claims. I asked you to cite your sources, something which you had great difficulty in obtaining earlier on.

I have had the pleasure of extracting an apology from Dab in the past regarding the history of India. Had you played the game well, you could extract one too. and all muslims : does spell out something here. Are you saying that all Muslims are "bad"? Sweeping generalised statements on a community or religion are not taken well here.

You have made personal statements against us accusing us of what not. We Indian editors are a close knit community, and an attack on one of us does not go down well with the others. So, in effect you are more likely to remain isolated. If you can tender an apology (I always do if I realise that I'm wrong) issues can be settled much faster in the future. I know you are frustrated and isolated, but by continuing in the same tone will not gain you any brownie points.

As an encyclopedia, we do not invent new terms. We report it as it is. The term "Hindu numerals" were never coined and so to invent one goes against our policy even though it may not be 100% correct. And what behaviour as an admin are you talking about. IMO, I managed to put forward a proposal which was instantly taken notice of, and the situation was reverted by the admin who had moved it. Effective debating? No personal attacks? I don't want to be boasting, but I would like you to please take note of what happened. That's the way things work here, by being civil and putting forward cogent statements.

Had you fought with a strong tone, you would be more likely to get your point across. Its not being an admin that counts, its more of effective bargaining which you'll only get through experience.

That's all I can give you for now. If you continue to be more civil in the future, I may be more affable and guide you on wikipedia policies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Kokhra and Kokhar

Shivraj, aside from the page disputes, I have a question for you which I believe you have the knowledge to answer, I hope you are professional enough to aid this endeavour.

I have read that a Suryavanshi clan of Kokhra's exist. Some Kokhars of Punjab are vehement in their claim that they are Rajputs and some claim to be Jatts. We know that Jatts have had dethroned Rajputs in their fold too. Is it possible that the Kokhra's and Kokhars are one and possibly the same? --Raja 04:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It does make sense actually and I didnt actually come across this point before, but much admit I have seen examples of this too i.e. Rajgharia etc. (not of Rajputs, but of people adopting locality names as surnames etc) Thank you also for your civility, that was very much appreciated too. I do hope besides the issues on the 'particular' page, that we can work together on other points and issues :) --Raja 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory

Edit summary

Please avoid taking a "judgmental tone in edit comments" as per Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks and happy edits. --Hurricane111 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Dear User:Paul Barlow and User:Shivraj Singh, I understand that you two have different opinions regarding the article Aryan invasion theory. The article Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains great tips in how to solve content dispute. Some of the suggested methods include Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. They might help you in solving the dispute. Sincerely, --Hurricane111 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility...

Look, regardless of who's right and who's wrong (personally, I don't much appreciate your forcing unjustified historical revisionism on the Max Müller article), your referring to Paul B as an Aryan supremacist simply for arguing against your POV is a blatant personal attack, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. elvenscout742 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am siding with him because "his POV" (as you call it) is a widely accepted, historical fact. Your POV (as it is) is historical revisionism, and has no place being pushed on Wikipedia, especially in such a manner as to defame Max Müller by calling him a racist. "Aryan supremacist" is an insulting term that implies the possession of a very harsh, racist ideology, and to call someone by this and other names for trying to stop you from filling Wikipedia with POV is incivility. If he called you a "Hindu nationalist", which would not be viewed by a great many people as an insult, it is simply a statement that is, from what one can see from your writing, truth. When something is an accepted fact, it is not racist to try to push it in an encyclopedia. When something is not an accepted fact, and clearly motivated by some sort of nationalistic, exclusionist sentiment, it does not belong here. elvenscout742 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I'll get around to reading that essay at a later date. But you must bear in mind that it is not itself infallible, and the fact is that most mainstream historians are against you. I'm not trying to argue that the POV that the AIT was the product of racism should not be included in Wikipedia - if it's as widely held as you claim, it should - but you are demanding that it be enforced as fact, which is blatantly against Wikipedia policy. If you want to do this, write your own book - don't spam an online encyclopedia. elvenscout742 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR on Aryan invasion theory

I have blocked you for 24h on Aryan invasion theory for WP:3RR. If you don't stop being incivil - this [4] is not an acceptable edit comment - you'll find yourself blocked for longer. Please comment here if you wish to. William M. Connolley 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

William, From 3RR page

A vote passed to give further enforcement power to this rule:

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

On AIT page I did not violate 3RR in last 24 hours. I made 2 edits and two reverts.

First edit

First revert

Second edit. Added my comments to the version saved by 70.187.218.135

Second revert

Regarding incivility, Paul Barlow has been claiming I am a hindu nationalist. Nobody has warned him. I call him an aryan supremacist and the whole world is after me!!. Do we apply different yardstick to different people? Shivraj Singh 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the rules on what is a revert: they do not have to be word-for-word identical. Adding trivial changes does not change a "revert" into an acceptable "edit". As to civility... I fear that if you continue that attitude you'll end up in trouble. William M. Connolley 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

My first edit was a "new edit" and NOT a revert. After the first edit I touched that page three more times. Even if you count them as reverts, they do not represent 4 reverts in 24 hours. Admit it you have made a mistake. And you sidestepped Barlow's calling me a hindu nationalist. As an admin you have to be more fair then this. Shivraj Singh 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[5]. Where did PB do what you assert, and is "Hindu Nationalist" a term of insult? (this is not a rhetorical question; I was under the impression that many people would call themselves such) William M. Connolley 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Mutyal clan

Quick question for you regarding a name that has popped up for me to investigate which I hope you canhelp me on. Have you heard of the Mutyals? I have a Hindu friend who alleges that they are a Rajput clan but knows little beyond that as his parents passed away quite early in life and he is here on sponsorship, so asking relatives isn't easy. Can you help?--Raja 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rajput references

You cite Rajput#References as being adequate, but you do not point to the pages in any of those books which contain information which corresponds to specific information in your version of the article. So it would be extremely difficult to check any of the information in your article by reference to the books you cite. Fred Bauder 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this case will be decided based on your reaction to Dbackmann's attempt to intervene, but for adequate references you need to link the information in the article with the location of the information in the source. There are a number of ways to do this. I like comments <!--page of book this information is from-->. Others like footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Fred Bauder 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rajput and Turk warfare

Hi Shivraj, Please see this article: http://www.airavat.com/guerrilla_warfare3.htm It describes the warfare between the invaders and the Rajputs, the use of Jauhar to prevent conversion to Islam, and the ultimate failure of the Turks to conquer India. regards, Zorawar Singh Shekawat.

Thank you

This [6] is utterly unacceptable from an administrator. Fred Bauder 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Proposed_decision#Dbachmann_desyopped, sorry to have missed this. Fred Bauder 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutyal Clan question

He states they are in Punjab, but they originally migrated over a century ago from Delhi sides. He doesn't know much beyond this Im afraid. Will this help? Have you heard of this name before?--Raja 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. It's quite interesting because they are some Mutyals in Pakistani Punjab also (have just been told) and they also allege the same. I'll let you know as soon as I find out. Interesting about the 'Yal' note with Brahmins.

Another point is that there is also another tribe called the 'Rutyal'. This actually tribe was displaced in Punjab approx 1800's during the Sikh conquests and their riyasat renamed Rutala/Ratala. (in recognition of it's old rulers) could they also be linked? The Rutyals were known as Rajas too around those parts. Have you heard of Rutyals? Im sure an Indian congressman is a Rutyal. --Raja 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rajput

Yes i am a rajput. i am of the Toor tribe, who lost popwer when the british came and took over. So i saw nothing on the Toors and naturally was insulted. I myself plan to add it if no one else knows about them(i'm also making a "History of the Toors" website).

Toors are not Thomars, we come from the Punjab, but were not related to Pritviraj Chauhan in any way. We did have a brief war with Ranjeet Singh for some land before the british defeated everyone, if that helps identify the Toors to you. I am from the Punjab region, by the way.User:AeomMai 4:56 pm February 8 006

Ratala clan

Have you heard of this clan? I believe it's the proper name for the Rutyal's or Rutyala's I believe. I know there is a google search name of Dhan Raj Ratala. Is this name farmilar to you as a Rajput name?--Raja 06:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Resigning

I'm sorry to hear you are leaving Wikipedia. I can delete your user and talk pages if you wish. If you come back any administrator can undelete them. To completely remove your account would take a bureaucrat or a developer. Fred Bauder 04:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Brother Shivraj,

You made a mistake in leaving Wikipedia. Anyway I will create hell for bachman and he will soon be having my

nightmares.

DPSingh 12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sher Shah Suri article

Hello everyone,

I am going to write an extremely detailed article on Sher Shah Suri and this is my statement of intent. I am going to use the following books with citations

1. India since 1526 by Vidya Dhar Mahajan 2. Sher Shah Suri: A New Perspective by Basheer Ahmad Khan Matta 3. Rohtas: Formidable Fort of Sher Shah by Ihsan H. Nadiem

Since the article will be extremely detailed I intend to use skeletons at first.

I have seen the discussion on this page and i wanted to tell you people about it.

The other thing i could do is to start a parallel page and then people can decide which page they want.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omar mukhtar (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Well Done

Dear Shivraj,

I am extremely delighted by your efforts towards highlighting the much neglected Rajput    Fame which has been greatly undervalued by the modern society. 

How can the world forget that most of the warriors who took swords against the British were Rajput rulers of Maratha and central India. The administration of the country was going extremely well under their control and had infact reached to the extent of India being called The Golden Bird of the world. Has any other dynasty or rulers reached that level after the decline of Rajput era? Why doesn't the world accept the truth? Rajputs were never of Muslim caste and this is a settled and undisputed fact. You cannot please everyone , and therefore you have done a right thing by leaving the forum since some people can never understand, afterall if all had the same intelligence level why would there be wars and disputes. Best wishes to you Keep it up Jaipurlolored (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Jaipurlolored (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kanhad Dev Songara

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kanhad Dev Songara, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kanhad Dev Songara. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dhandhul

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dhandhul, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability for this family whatsoever here.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maharaja Jaswant Singh

Please keep an eye on the Jaswant Singh of Marwar article, sum1 had ripped of all the history of the page, leaving only 3 paragraphrs, i've restored most of it as of now. Thank you Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Shivraj Singh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Klaus Klostermaier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Khokra

The article Khokra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN branch of clan

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Deora

The article Deora has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. I'm not even sure that they are a subclan of Chauhan, which rules out a redirect. No reliable sources, even on the talk page where the dreadful James Tod gets a few mentions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rajawat

The article Rajawat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Yet another clan for which there appears to be no significant information in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jasrotia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jasrotia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasrotia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhadauria clan

The article Bhadauria clan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not WP:NOTABLE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karnot

The article Karnot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced for years and I can find no reliable sources that discuss it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Rao Ajay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rao Ajay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rao Ajay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Collaboratio (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Rao Sheoji for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rao Sheoji is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rao Sheoji until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Collaboratio (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhadail

The article Bhadail has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, nothing found on a search except useless Raj-era sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)